All-time XI: England

[watson]

I mean to those 2 comments regarding Grace, it's pretty hard to dislodge Hutton and Hobbs

Fair point.

In order for WG to come into the team you first have to conceive that WG could be a better opening batsman than either Hutton, or Hobbs. I have trouble imagining this.

 

[Red]

I don't want to sound rude, but how the **** could you put Root in an all time England team at this stage of his career?

Hammond
Barrington
Gower
May
Compton
Pietersen

all have claims to middle order spots and had stellar, lengthy careers, and that's before you factor in someone like Botham as an all rounder. I accept the kid is very talented but fmd this strikes me as premature exaltation.

Was to generate discussion more than anything, which it has.

 

[watson]

Would anyone consider picking Frank Woolley over Ian Botham as the allrounder?

The advantage of Woolley is that the team gets a classical slow left-arm orthodox bowler that can claim wickets and support Barnes when the pitch is turning. This added variety means that 3 fast bowlers can be played rather than the usual 2.

Frank Woolley: A giant among the great English all-rounders

As Frank Woolley said himself, "when I am batting, I am the attack..."

Abhishek Mukh, 2013


.....Few batsmen have combined elegance and have been dynamic at the same time while batting, and also score a lot of runs as well. If you add to that his mixed bag of left-arm medium-paced and orthodox spin bowling and superlative fielding (especially in the slips), you get an incredible package. Frank Woolley was that package.

For England, Woolley scored 3,823 runs at 36.07 with 5 hundreds and took 83 wickets at 33.91 with 4 five-fors and a 10-for, along with 64 catches. There is a general thumb-rule that a good all-rounder is someone whose batting average exceeds his bowling average — and Woolley passed that test comfortably.

He played 64 Tests (including a run of 52 consecutive Tests, which was a world record), spanned over a period of 27 years (this included World War I, which took away his prime years — from an age of 27 to 32) under 14 English captains — a singular record that stands till date (Jack Hobbs and Mushtaq Ahmed are next with 12 each). As Neville Cardus had said, “no other cricketer served the meadow game as happily and faithfully as [Frank] Woolley”.

Frank Woolley: A giant among the great English all-rounders - Latest Cricket News, Articles & Videos at CricketCountry.com

Frank Woolley was easy to watch, difficult to bowl to, and impossible to write about. When you bowled to him there weren’t enough fielders; when you wrote about him, there weren’t enough words. In describing a great innings by Woolley, and few of them were not great in artistry, you had to be careful with your adjectives and stack them in little rows, like pats of butter or razor-blades. In the first over of his innings, perhaps, there had been an exquisite off-drive, followed by a perfect cut, then an effortless leg-glide. In the second over the same sort of thing happened; and your superlatives had already gone. The best thing to do was to presume that your readers knew how Frank Woolley batted and use no adjectives at all… there was all summer in a stroke by Woolley, and he batted as it is sometimes shown in dreams.

RC Robertson-Glasgow

https://backwatersman.wordpress.com/tag/r-c-robertson-glasgow/

01. Jack Hobbs
02. Len Hutton
03. Ted Dexter
04. Ken Barrington
05. Walter Hammond
06. Frank Woolley
07. Les Ames
08. Harold Larwood
09. John Snow
10. Fred Trueman
11. Sydney Barnes

 

[the big bambino]

He's a great player but I wouldn't sub him in for anyone you've already got. Not one of my favourites either as I find him a little jingoistic for his county and for the golden age era. I've also noted Ames shared his county parochialism and wonder if Woolley influenced him. I mean Ames preferred Freeman to Grimmett for God's sake. Woolley on the other hand reckoned that Hammond was nothing special and there were up to 30 players playing county cricket in the golden age who were up to his standard. There's a simple way to check this. If Woolley made the test team back then so would have Hammond as Wally was clearly a better player than Frank. The good thing about ATG selections is that you can count players out on whims. Woolley wont be selected on account of him being a bull ****ter.

 

[watson]

First I've heard of Frank Woolley being called 'jingoistic' and a 'bull ****ter'. I'll have to take your word for it big bambino.

 

[the big bambino]

What he was saying in his round about way was that he thought he was way better than Hammond. So BS to that. He also pumped up Kent players for no other obvious reason except the county of their birth. So jingoism to that. Can't see how else you'd describe it.

 

[watson]

@bambino

Walter Hammond admitted in his own post-War autobiography (Cricket My World, page 11) that facing fast bowling never came naturally to him;

Fast bowling intrigues me; Gregory scared me of it badly when I played my first match against the Australians when I was a youngster, and it took me years to get happy against real speed; and ever since I have experienced a sense of getting my own back when I can send a speed merchant to the rails

This admission is backed by the torrid time that he had against the 'Bodyline' tactics of Constantine, Martindale, and Griffith in 1933, especially during the Old Trafford Test when he had his chin badly split open. He averaged 25 for the 3 Test series.

I don't think that Frank Woolley ever had the same concerns;

I never heard Woolley confess that he preferred or disliked any bowler whatsoever. But then he was a very quiet man. I have a belief that he was particularly fond of them fast and short. They went to the boundary more quickly.....only a few years ago, when he was 47 years old I saw him murder Voce and Butler, the Nottinghamshire bowlers, in the first overs of a match at Canterbury.

RC Robertson-Glasgow, 1945.

While batting at number 3 during the Lords Test of 1921 he scored back-to-back 90s against Gregory and McDonald while most of the English batsman battled to get to double figures. He averaged 43 over 5 Tests for the series and no other English batsman came close to his aggregate of 343 runs. Brown was the next best with 250 runs.

Perhaps Woolley sensed Hammond's indifference to fast bowling when he commented in 1938;

Those were the great days when plenty of amateurs could spare time for cricket. I do not believe there are so many good players in the game now as before the [First World] War. In the old days we were probably educated in cricket in a far more serious way than now. For the purpose of giving the younger people my idea of the difference, I will put up Walter Hammond, England's captain, as an example. Before 1914 there were something like 30 players up to his standard and he would have been in the England team only if at the top of his form. I make these remarks without casting the slightest reflection on Hammond. He is a grand player and one of the greatest all-round cricketers since the War - in fact, the greatest.

I doubt whether English cricket has really recovered from the effects of the War. You see, we missed half a generation and since then young men have found many other ways of occupying their leisure hours. Still, I believe it is only a passing phase and cricket will one day produce an abundance of great players.

Wisden - Frank Woolley

 

[watson]

.......If Hammond had problems against the West Indies attack in 1933 because they piched short then heaven help him in an ATG context against Marshall and Holding. They would simply take him apart.

For this reason I prefer Dexter at number 3 because he enjoyed taking on fast bowlers like Hall and Griffith and was excellent at it. The same sort of idea applies to Botham. He was excellent against fast medium stuff, but his record against quality West Indian pace attacks is poor.

Woolley on the other hand would be just as exhilarating to watch as Dexter, if not more so. Admittedly Woolley might get out early, but if he got set then his 2-3 hours at the crease against Marahall and Holding would have to be one of the best sights ever.

 

[bagapath]

I don't get people putting WG in 2nd/3rd XIs. If you think he is eligible for Test XIs, they you put him in the first.

there can't be better openers in history than hobbs and hutton. equal, yes, perhaps. better, no chance.

getting grace to open with sutcliffe already places him above boycott, gooch, cook, edrich and washbrook and that is good enough

 

[harsh.ag]

there can't be better openers in history than hobbs and hutton. equal, yes, perhaps. better, no chance.

getting grace to open with sutcliffe already places him above boycott, gooch, cook, edrich and washbrook and that is good enough

WG's batting accomplishments wrt peer group is definitely greater than all batsmen bar Bradman.

 

[OverratedSanity]

there can't be better openers in history than hobbs and hutton. equal, yes, perhaps. better, no chance.

getting grace to open with sutcliffe already places him above boycott, gooch, cook, edrich and washbrook and that is good enough

Our point is that if you consider WG's accomplishments in fc cricket enough to judge him in a Test scenario, then on the back of his fc record, he's better than everyone bar Bradman (and even that's debatable). If you don't have his fc record in consideration, then he shouldn't get in ahead of all those other great English openers.

 

[91Jmay]

and at the age of 18 he had scored 224 not out for England against Surrey, in a match which he left halfway through in order to win a quarter-mile hurdles championship at the Crystal Palace!

Reckon that alone demands selection to be honest.

 

[watson]

WG's batting accomplishments wrt peer group is definitely greater than all batsmen bar Bradman.

WG Grace (1880 to 1899)
Test = 22
Average = 32.29
HS = 170
100s = 2
50s = 5

Arthur Shrewsbury (1883 to 1893)
Tests = 23
Average = 35.47
HS = 164
100s = 3
50s = 4

Billy Murdoch (1877 to 1892)
Tests = 19
Average = 31.31
HS = 211
100s = 2
50s = 1

 

[harsh.ag]

WG Grace (1880 to 1899)
Test = 22
Average = 32.29
HS = 170
100s = 2
50s = 5

Arthur Shrewsbury (1883 to 1893)
Tests = 23
Average = 35.47
HS = 164
100s = 3
50s = 4

Billy Murdoch (1877 to 1892)
Tests = 19
Average = 31.31
HS = 211
100s = 2
50s = 1

Not talking about his test career ffs watson.

If his test stats were as good as I had described, there wouldn't be a debate at all ffs.

 

[OverratedSanity]

WG Grace (1880 to 1899)
Test = 22
Average = 32.29
HS = 170
100s = 2
50s = 5

Arthur Shrewsbury (1883 to 1893)
Tests = 23
Average = 35.47
HS = 164
100s = 3
50s = 4

Billy Murdoch (1877 to 1892)
Tests = 19
Average = 31.31
HS = 211
100s = 2
50s = 1

Do this for his fc career between 1868 and 1880. No one touches him.

 

[OverratedSanity]

Pretty decent run from Grace here :

Absolutely ridiculous

 

[Coronis]

.......If Hammond had problems against the West Indies attack in 1933 because they piched short then heaven help him in an ATG context against Marshall and Holding. They would simply take him apart.

For this reason I prefer Dexter at number 3 because he enjoyed taking on fast bowlers like Hall and Griffith and was excellent at it. The same sort of idea applies to Botham. He was excellent against fast medium stuff, but his record against quality West Indian pace attacks is poor.

Woolley on the other hand would be just as exhilarating to watch as Dexter, if not more so. Admittedly Woolley might get out early, but if he got set then his 2-3 hours at the crease against Marahall and Holding would have to be one of the best sights ever.

He also said it took him years to be comfortable against genuine pace, but he did manage to.

 

[91Jmay]

Didn't he once score 800 odd runs in 2 weeks one year? Couple of triple tons IIRC.

including 839 in just eight days of 1876, when he hit a couple of triple-centuries, and only one other batsman managed to top a thousand runs in the entire season; a thousand in May in 1895, when he was nearly 47

Found it. That is ridiculous.

 

[chasingthedon]

Grace could also bowl a bit, if we are not discounting round-arm.

Must be the only cricketer with fc best batting of 300+ and best bowling of all ten wickets?

 

[Red]

Pretty decent run from Grace here :

Absolutely ridiculous

That's incredible. I knew this was a thing but to see it in raw numbers is very impressive. And yeh, Bradmanesque.